The ideology underlying liberalism is that one should seek
one’s own ends in whatever way one sees fit. This has lead to the demise of
morality in the postmodern society and the silencing of anyone who speaks
against it. Liberalism itself is devoid of a moral foundation, producing a society
that is divided by conflicting self-interests of different social groups
because it is against the categorical imperative of respecting all others.
Postmodernism purports that there is no universal truth, but
that there are many truths. Therefore, it follows from postmodern logic that these
truths depend on what is perceived by the individual since everything is an
illusion. If there are really no universal truths, why should such a statement
be taken seriously?
Postmodernists argue that postmodernism is legitimate
because it purports there are different perspectives that determine what is
true. Equating truth to perception is implying that truth is relative, not
absolute. However, truth cannot be relative to be rightfully called truth.
Equating truth to perception is a ploy to deny the existence of truth with the
motive gaining one’s self-interests.
Morality is the categorical imperative which confers binding
universal and objective obligations on all individuals that arises from one’s
inherent human dignity. Such dignity can
neither be taken nor given by one’s culture, society, family, government or any
other human institution. Therefore, morality is not dependent on social or
cultural contexts but possessed by virtue of each individual being created
equal to all others. Its purpose is to ensure respect for all other human
beings, not merely to prevent people from hurting others. To respect others is to
not use people as ends to a means, but means in themselves. To use people as
ends to a means is not merely ‘disrespect’ but exploitation, thereby breaking the
categorical imperative.
Unlike the categorical imperative, postmodernism provides no
foundation for the moral logic of universal and objective obligations. By
purporting that morality is up the individual to determine, respect for the
categorical imperative of obligations arising from equal human dignity is eroded.
This has provides groups who disdain the categorical imperative of obligations
a pretext to justify their actions which break the categorical imperative.
Political correctness imposes on all individuals a set of
standards which ensure that no group is offended by compelling all individuals
to embrace all ideologies and beliefs. Offence is anything that is opposed to
the beliefs, actions or goals of those worthy of politically correct
protection: those that tolerate all other beliefs or have common beliefs with
those who claim to tolerate all other beliefs.
Political correctness is based on the idea that moral right
and wrong is determined by the individual. This has lead to the quest for
tolerance which seeks to ensure that all individuals have their freedom to have
their own opinion, view and attitudes as long as it is not deemed to offend
that of others, especially those deemed to be minorities such as women,
homosexuals, refugees, those of lower socioeconomic status and Muslims. The
case often made against political correctness is that it hinders free speech, a
right that all individuals should be able to exercise without fear. However, it
can be argued in addition to this, that political correctness erodes the
categorical imperative of obligations.
Political correctness teaches people that morality is
determined by people, rather than existent in itself by attempting to deny the
existence of the categorical imperative. By preaching the need to accept all
other beliefs, it provides a pretext for hatred and slander of those who act or
speak against liberal political agendas: those who believe a categorical
imperative must be adhered to. The irony of political correctness is that it
forces conformity or acceptance of liberal political agendas without any
tolerance for those against it. Given the stifling lack of ability to act
against anything which offends others, political correctness may well legitimise,
for example, the “right” to paedophilia and the “right” to bestiality.
Australian culture is built on the values of tolerance and
egalitarianism. Tolerance is not love and acceptance as political correctness likes
to pretend but rather the indifference towards immoral acts and the silencing
of criticism against such acts, on the grounds that it is the individual rather
than a categorical imperative who determines morality. This explains why social
sensitivity determined by offensiveness to social groups, rather than the
morality and ethics of the issue.
Egalitarianism equates fairness to justice. Fairness is
merely about equal treatment of people for doing the same thing. Justice,
however, seeks to ensure that any wrongs committed are rectified and not merely
treated the same as that committed by another. Egalitarianism has be used to
justify the cynicism of the Australian majority towards the relatively high
economic achievement of certain ethnic minorities, by legitimising the argument
that high economic achievement by ‘others’ is against the ideals of equality, and
therefore an injustice.
Academia, the media and the political arena make political
correctness a “moral” goal to be achieved in the name of equality and
inclusiveness. That anyone who dares to conquer liberalism is deemed dangerous
shows the ideological chauvinism of those of who judge people for fighting
against liberalism. This shows the extreme hypocrisy and dishonesty of those
who preach tolerance but dictate how society should behave.
Hypocrisy and dishonesty is the core of Australian culture. Such
moral hypocrisy and dishonesty lead to moral perversion by deceiving many into
believing the there is no such thing as moral obligation but only rights. The fight
for rights has divided society in which people blame others for their plight.
Owing to the rampant minoritarianism, those social groups which perceive
themselves to be marginalised are able to escape moral responsibility for their
own actions, while those who do not are held to be morally accountable for all
the actions and plight of those who do. Such ruthless individualism has
destroyed community.
Comments
Post a Comment